The principal theme of literature that is distributed as sacred writ throughout the world is commonly in regard to the origin and interactions of energies which we perceive as the universe. In the study of “holy” myths there is commonly a distinction made between Creation myths (elemental cosmology) and myths of origins, which focus more on the later evolved features within Creation such as animals, humans, social orders, etc.

Study of the origin of anything is properly only a continuation of Creation’s activity which marks the progress of the original creative energy outpouring. And this continuation of Creation activity accounts for the progressive arrangement of scriptural myth presentations. The mythic style is useful for instructing minds which are not fully capable of grasping the theoretical complexity and multidimensional characteristics which we speak of as Creation. The technique of myth-telling and the use of sacred language was originally the attempt to bridge the abyss of comprehension by personifying creative energy dimensions and their involvement as being characteristics of god, demigods, heroes, and/or divinely favored mortal beings.

The tragedy of this means of instruction is that the original scientific understanding behind the stories easily became sidetracked and the accounts then became accepted as authentic reporting. Even more dangerous for those whom the myths were invented to aid them comprehend primal energy actions, the stories were restructured as having been actual historic ancestors. Once the bogus “history” technique for teaching became the standard our role within Creation became trapped in the dark theological maze that has no off-ramp by which one could return to rationality.

Creationists, those Bible-thumping fanatics incapable of abstract thought who insist that Creation took place literally in six 24 hour Earth-time days, remain oblivious to pertinent clues provided within the tale itself. The clues reveal that the Genesis version of Creation was based upon an older and broader understanding of the true involution/evolutionary development of primal energies-into-matter. There is a telling peculiarity in the writing style of the Genesis account of Creation which is consistently disregarded by Creationist fanatics concerning the measurement method of those “days” of Creation. It is perhaps too subtle for those incapable of abstract thought. By verse 5 of the first chapter of Genesis, immediately after God created light, the account declares: “And God called the (initial) radiance Day, and the darkness (primal energy conditions) Night. And the evening and the morning were the first Day.” Interestingly Day is emphasized by a capital D, and Night is similarly stressed with a capital N, and the emphasis is for a reason.

In man’s standard time measurement practice, a solar-centered day is not reasonably calculated or defined as being “the evening and the morning.” Nonetheless, the “holy word” extremists happily ignore the fact that in the priest written sacred account Earth was not even conjured up until verse 10; so the first “Day” obviously is not supposed to be calculated from how our puny little planet would measure time. This is the complex reckoning by which each “Day” of Creation is erroneously interpreted in scriptural terms, however. Creation of the “firmament” is the subject in verse 6 (the second Day) and is accentuated by the division of “waters” within which. scientifically speaking, creative energies involve with specific frequencies. Then in verse 8 the “firmament” itself was allegedly labeled “Heaven” by God. With the establishment of the “firmament,” verse 8 sums it up, and again “…the evening and the morning were the second Day.” The account is worded in this manner in an anxious attempt to convey to non-technical minds the understanding that everything that was/is made manifest out of a void (primordial or virginal) condition.

Creation’s primal energy dimensions of what we may here term quantum activity are not involvements of Creations’s energies that can be assessed in terms of solar-reckoned days. This period of Creation activity, defined in scriptures as “Days,” is often circumvented by literal minded faith merchants by referring to the immeasurable time of Creation activity as “days of the Lord.” That elusive attempt to sidestep explanation of the immense progressive phases of Creation’s energy involvements and expansion into defined forms necessitated the familiar day/night sequence they personally experience. Thus the Days of Creation–or each primordial energy dimension of involvement (or involution)–which progresses out of a virginal void–was conveyed in allegorical style and presented as “holy word.”

But what did the priest-authors mean in verse 8 by a “firmament” being established? The Hebrew word which is translated as “firmament” is rakia, which actually means a vast expanse–or what we think of as space. The word “firmament” is traceable back to the Latin word firmare, which happened to mean something that supported or strengthened something (from Latin firmus, “firm”). And thus was holy word rendered into a stew pot of mismatched ingredients.

The priest authors of “holy word” were intent upon obtaining and maintaining their control over the tribal setup (Hebrew) and in order to this they had to mask what they did not know. Thus did they assert that a strangely human-like God labored six days over Creation. This has served western cultures as “holy revelation” for around three thousand years, during which many bright youngsters have innocently asked, “But where did God come from?” The common response to that childish rationality has been, “We must never question God.” Unfortunately, by adulthood too many formerly bright kids have been thoroughly brainwashed and their inclinations to question such things are directed to the No-No list. And the trusting believers now committed to the literal presentation of “holy word” are understandably traumatized when their taught assumptions are challenged by archaeological research that uncovers evidence of a totally different picture of true history.

Mankind’s many, many faith systems are each self-advertised and promoted as the positive method that inspires people to live their lives with more respectfulness and righteousness. But are practices which are formulated to pivot upon judgmental and prejudicial behavior toward “God’s” intended diversity really the untainted “narrow path” to attain Heaven or Paradise?

When faith systems teach seekers that all human entities skate on thin ice at the edge of the black hole of “sin” the minds of the faithful are persistently maneuvered into a submerged fear-based emotional state. Faith system merchants often lace their promotional spiels with heavy condemnation over minor differences which human entities are prone to. The “flock” has then been “blessed” with inappropriate belief that their faith system holds some especial and exclusive favor with the all-inclusive Creative Source. It’s an excellent tactic for the faith merchants, but it is hell on a devout person’s rationality. The sly inference of never quite measuring up to God’s expectations for you tends to fester in the subconscious, and that negative energy is inclined to gestate over time and give birth to little deformed demons of resentment.

Since personal consciousness rests within a god-ordained animal configuration during its limited matter life experience the natural response to all the subtle negativity packaged into faith system merchandising is a stimulation of the hypothalamus which often triggers an inbred fight or flight response. But the crafted “religious” dictum is that you are allowed to do neither. The internal physical/mental mechanism then must adjust something like this: The blood vessels become constricted and blood pressure rises; stomach acidity increases; and body muscles remain tense to get ready for physical confrontation. The most immediate result of all this built-in internal defense activity is that it serves to suppress the immune system which is the body’s defense against genuine life-threatening conditions.

Western organized by-the-book faith systems prosper because they have always sermonized that there is a constant threat which allegedly exists between each persons’s soul and the possibility of oblivion. Cultivation of fear for the unknown makes for an easy target for faith merchants to hit. And the built-in advantage is that it also keeps the faithful suspicious of any minor but natural (God ordained) differences which individualizes each person’s interests or lifestyle. It is a scientifically proven fact that over eighty percent of all human dysfunctions have been traced to emotional stress. So is mankind’s higher potential really being served by such cultivation of fanaticism, suspicion and intolerance as is religiously churned out by man-invented faith systems?

Organized faith systems regularly stand guilty of emphasizing and passing judgment on what are but minor natural differences rather than counseling tolerance and inspiring understanding of God-intended diversity and variety. These by-the-book faith systems generally give much lip service to tolerance and charity, but this is too often disproved by their typical attitude that their faith system alone–and it alone–holds some exclusive position with the Creative Source which they personify as “God.” The inappropriate cultivation of belief that their faith system possess some exclusive expressway into an imagined Creator’s favor generates only inappropriate expectations, both of others and of self. The indulgence in such belief programming brushes extremely close to what may be termed true sin, for it sets believers upon a path of negative life occurrences–i.e. judgmental attitudes, feelings of guilt over natural desires, practicing conditional love, avoidance of personal responsibility, lack of forgiveness, lust for material things, and a host of other favorite themes of faith system merchants.

The concept of monotheism is actually a practice of personifying the all-inclusive Creative Source as a principled, judgmental human-like being (God). This allows for the conducting of corporate-style business under the assertion that the powers which created and sustains everything is human-like and plays favorites with the diverse and varied energy combinations that are manifested as the human species. This is a conman tactic which is then slyly intensified by grafting a foreboding of death and judgment into their sales pitch. This further allows those claiming to hold the moral high ground to peddle their faith system’s insurance which promises a glorious afterlife. Unfortunately mankind can never attain its higher potential through such ego-stroking indulgence.

Such faith system practices will never ensure that peace, tolerance and brotherly love will actually be achieved by followers of hard line faith systems. Any acceptance and true charity for the intended diversity that is active as life would deprive those self-appointed god-ambassadors of their pretense of god-blessed authority. Thus man-made faith systems commonly teach judgment passing, hairsplitting, self-serving rites and rituals, spiritual exclusiveness, and similar ego-stroking propaganda. For seekers it all comes at a steep price: loss of the true access into higher alignment with universal power which is gained only through tolerance–which then flowers as enlightenment.

Reality–the everyday problems which are experienced in this dimension of limited energy which we call life–is not being well served when believers are assured that Creation’s laws can be set aside if only you believe in a certain belief system manner. The universe would implode into nothingness if exceptions were allowed for a certain chosen or saved few to bypass Creation’s laws. Scientific truth is being ignored when such egocentric beliefs are being marketed as ego stimulants, for the higher truth is that every identity within Creation stands accountable for itself. The creative laws responsible for the universe cannot be sidestepped or patched over by man-invented rites and ritual or ceremony. The Heaven and Paradise so fervently yearned for by faith system seekers can never be gained by practicing disrespect for the diversity and variety of other life forms or life styles which share this temporary passage through this limited energy field we speak of as matter.

Faith, the kind that does not rest on logic or open to acceptance of studies of powers invisible to us, is pretty much an inherited thing passed down from the parents and/or society, and it habitually lumbers under the mantle of some faith system which has evolved while its promoters have unethically pursued worldly ambitions. Unfortunately their drive is to prove to the world that some man-contrived institutionalized faith system is the only way that a person can storm the Creator’s Heaven: That only signals that the bottom line for that promoted faith system rests entirely in this world, not in any higher realm.

Pretending that cosmic powers aid only some particular man-made faith system in extending control over this material world’s tribulations is tragically misleading. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity whom they claim to represent be directly dependent upon militant actions of mere man to fulfill that all-powerful deity’s wishes? That illogical assertion is not consistent with the all-inclusive capabilities claimed for that imagined deity. The escape propaganda used to get around this theological flaw is the claim that such strong arm devotional indulgences are necessary to “test” the believers’ devotion. That really answers nothing, for why would an omniscient (all knowing) being ever find it necessary to “test” anything that he/she/it had created? The only reason for such a hot air claim rests in the ego-driven greed of the “spiritual shepherds: for exercising authority, not to provide any genuine spiritual enlightenment for seekers.

The three highly organized major faith systems of the western world’s cultures–faith systems which are all fragmented by schisms–have each been structured by priest or prophet authors upon a not too subtle prejudice against the bearing principle (considered feminine) that is within the Source which is necessary for life multiplication. This self-serving and cowardly propaganda has been set in place to “put the blame on woman” in an attempt to absolve the engendering principle within Source (considered male) from all the error and sin in the world. This propaganda that the creative action which is necessary for bearing forth of matter form is somehow the cause of man’s woes is glaringly antagonistic with the man-is-superior assertion that the male authors penned. It is “holy” guidance such as this of godly approval of inequity that has contributed heavily to mankind’s seemingly endless wars and atrocities.

If the Omniscient power, personified and characterized as a male deity, finds that he/she/it must “test” his/her/its creations for worthiness that divine inclination for questioning any created object or event should be fully acceptable as a human characteristic if we are, as claimed, made in his image. It is peculiar, therefore, that man-fashioned faith systems tend to abhor questions–especially so in regard to any question concerning their claims of divine authority. To seriously question the powers-that-be of that faith system can make for some disquieting conclusions. One logical conclusion is that only con artists write religious rituals and rites and ceremonies. That is provable because no one else like you or I really need such crafted public theatrical indulgences to experience personal connection to the all-embracing power in which we exist. Rites and ritual and ceremony serve the spiritual pretenders, however, as a means of exercising authority through inflicting a kind of intellectual tyranny which asserts that they and they alone represent what can only be imagined as some Divine Avenger. That implied avenger conjures up what can only be called superstition which is fleshed out with liberal doses of the supernatural. This is the intentional crucifixion of rationality nailed upon duplicity. In that methodology reason is intentionally dishonored for the benefit of theologies.

Despite their implied intimacy with the Creator, true spiritual instruction remains mysteriously nebulous within the tons of man-authored texts which dare to pretend to teach spiritual qualification. With these texts seekers are taught to reject the varieties and diversities of life expressions, to dismiss any differing way of expressing spiritual consciousness, and to install within themselves a devotion to man-crafted prejudices, bigotry, hatreds, and their religious inspired massacres and wars. The unifying power that underlies the entire universe and its diversity is totally ignored for the self-imposed illusion fashioned by EGO for imagined exclusiveness with the Creator of that diversity.

Remembering that religious right factions took over the US Republican Party in 1996, and that Republican dogmatists now (2015) control both houses of Congress, perhaps we should review their method of “progress.” The nation had thrust upon it in 2000–through dubious means which happened to be decided by five Republican-Catholic leaning Justices of the Supreme Court–confirming presidency upon a self-admitted born again believer who then quickly lied the nation into a needless and costly war, and who relished torturing captives taken in that drummed up war. After his devious eight year term in office was over the Republicans in Congress spent the next six years deliberately obstructing the bulk of law making which could have advanced the bulk of US citizens. Indeed, the 2014 Congress turned in the worst record of representation of the citizens in the nation’s history. With over half of Congress also being long-stocked by millionaires, perhaps we should look into past member’s track records.

There are 535 members of the United States Congress, members who are responsible for establishing the nation’s laws which are supposed to guarantee equal justice for all citizens, and which should also apply equally to the citizens’ representatives. There have always been freeloaders among the “membership,” and experts at double talk, addicts of pretentiousness, and those who do business under the table and/or behind closed doors. There have been untold episodes of conflicts of interest, endless self-promotions through a feeding trough called “ear marks,” childish tantrums of spite called “filibusters,” and even outright indifference for the nation’s Constitution. All of this can be and has been indulged in while taking a healthy salary (paid by taxpayers), self-granted government paid medical coverage, generous expense accounts, and even a self-granted pension plan (paid from tax payers’ wallets) after they exit their stint of “service”—even if only after one term. Speak of entitlements!

In other words, politics, like religion, attracts people with huge ego problems and who are divinely untroubled with any heavy personal scruples. Perhaps we should not be surprised, therefore, at these disquieting statistics of Congressional members (a sample is from 2011).

* Three members were incarcerated for assault
* Seven members were arrested for fraud
* Eight were arrested for shoplifting
* Fourteen were arrested on drug-related charges
* Twenty-one were defendants in lawsuits
* Seventy-one could not get a credit card because of bad credit
* Eighty-four had been arrested for drunk driving
* One hundred and seventeen were involved, either directly or indirectly, in bankrupting at least two businesses
* It is unclear how many were/are adulterers and/or brothel clients
* Too many in office continue to pretend that they have superior religious guidance for their material double dealings

The Founding Fathers of the United States well-knew that human nature is easily tempted. For this reason they sought to devise safeguards so every citizen of the new nation might have a better chance in the pursuit of happiness and freedom of spirit. Governing power, therefore, was not to rest in one person’s hands as in kingdoms, dictatorships or theocracies. Therefore three branches of government were specified to act as the hallowed trinity of democracy; the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. For the most part, that system has well-served a broader spectrum of people for the bulk of the nation’s 239 year history.

As religious faction have pushed more and more into the inner circles of government since 1996 (when religionists took over the Republican Party), emphasis has shifted from loyalty to a golden democracy into a furious pursuit of democratic gold for power seekers. In the process neither genuine democracy nor spiritual integrity have been enhanced. The founders of the US were altruistic, and they believed that serving in any of the three branches of government was to be taken on as an honor, not as a self-serving career move.

But from at least the late 1990s the thrust of those who have wormed their way into government positions from the Right have vigorously chopped at the very roots of democracy. And the carnival which this brand of politicians have made of politics is shown in the fact that they proved incapable of any real solutions to national problems. Instead they kept public attention muddied with faith system obsessions such as a woman’s right to choose, people’s’ lifestyles, and even who they should love. When their grab for power and materiality has been successful they shackled democratic principles in attempts to do such things as take away workers’ rights, deny senior the protection which the seniors had paid into for years, have sought to downgrade education standards, actually gave personhood rights to corporations, stolen from the poor and siphoned it to the rich, reduced environmental standards, and just sat on their hands and did nothing about gun shows where anyone could and can buy quantities of guns without any background checks.

The point of this mini review is that there is a desperate need for Congressional Reform, and that has been summed up in the proposed 28th Amendment to the US Constitution which covers the following eight considerations:

1) Term limits for Congress members consisting of twelve years only should be established, which would, however, include one of three possible options; A) two six-year Senate terms; B) six two-year House terms; C) one six-year Senate term and three two-year House terms.

2) There should be neither Tenure nor Pension provisions to Congress members for having held the honor of their office. Every Congressman receives a salary, usually with an expense account; and they continue to get paid for that past honor even after leaving office, which certainly dishonors the concept of true democracy. Indeed, a member of Congress can retire with the same yearly pay after only one term! Is that self-granted entitlement available anywhere else in the workplace?

3) Equally dishonoring of true democratic principles is the special favor Congress members bestowed upon themselves which frees “members” from participating in Social Security which is relied upon by the very people the “members” are supposed to serve. Democratic principles as conceived by the Founding Fathers require that Congress participates with the American people; that means that properly all funds which have been amassed for Congressional retirement payouts (from taxes) should always have been placed in the Social Security system just as it is for the private citizens whom they serve. That Congressional graft scheme must be corrected.

4) If Congress members want a retirement plan they may and should do as the rest of the American citizens are obliged to do and purchase that security cushion on their own. That self-granted Congressional retirement plan is but another graft scheme.

5) What average citizen has the ability to give themselves a pay raise? Why does Congress have the undemocratic clout to vote themselves a pay raise? Rightfully, Congressional pay should rise only by the lower of CPI–or by three percent. That’s what they impose on the elderly–but they have reneged even on that raise for those depending on Social Security.

6) Person elected as representatives of the people do not represent the people when they grant themselves special privileges. Another case in point, Congress enjoys a special health care system, and have excluded themselves from the Healthcare Reform which everyday citizens have to rely on. Properly the Congressional “members” should participate in the very same health care system as all other American citizens. Elected representatives are neither moral nor true to the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded by implying that they are a privileged class; they are servants of the people.

7) The legislative branch of government determines the laws of the land: that office does not mean that those in-office are above the law. Congressional members must comply equally by each and every law which Congress has imposed upon the American people. (As one little example which members slipped into law, did you know that Congressional members are exempt from being prosecuted for sexual harassment?)

8) All of these listed points considered here make it clear that the proper thing to do for true democratic governing is to void all past and present self-serving contracts of Congressmen for Congressmen, and this should be made effective immediately. The above mentioned seven points of undemocratic indulgences were self-contracted by Congress “members”–certainly their self-granted entitlements are not for the betterment of private citizens. It is crucial that American citizens stand up and confront their elected “officials” about these self-granted privileges the lawmakers enacted for themselves. These self-serving entitlements are in direct opposition to the laws they have imposed upon the rest of the nation’s citizens.

According to man-written holy texts the creation of man was the Creator’s last and highest work. Naturally, from the writers’ perspective, man was God’s favored creation—especially the authors. But this claim brought with it the uncomfortable necessity to explain the imperfect circumstances which are experienced in life. Thus, very early in Genesis the assumed male Creator explains the facts of life by instructing the vaguely defined male/female beings about diet: they must not eat of the fruit of two specific trees in the center of his landscaped garden. And so in paradisiacal Eden, so the authors contend, the requirement for enjoying that paradise was to simply submit and obey. And that tactic of control has been used by and for every cult and faith system ever devised by man.

Thus in verse 29 of the first chapter God is quoted as saying, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” It is never explained how Adam and Eve would have known what “meat” actually signified, but we must ignore such trivialities. The plotting starts to get heavier by the opening of chapter three (verses 2 and 3) where Eve is portrayed as conversing with a serpent in regard to one of those trees which God had made the focus-point of his garden. The innocent and inexperienced Eve tells the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest you die.”

Whoa, wait a minute! Eve and Adam have existed only for an extremely short time, all of which had been played out in a paradisiacal garden; how could they possibly have any concept of what the threat of death meant? That’s not important! Anyway, in verse five the serpent reassured Eve that, “…God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” It is not explained how the serpent, a lowly creature fashioned in the early “let there be” throes of Creation, already possessed such knowledge, but God’s last and supposedly highest creation was, well, kind of stupid. So why would the newly functioning brains of these favorite beings, which are essentially blank, have any aspiration to be as gods since they don’t even know what good and evil means? Their eyes shall be opened, the serpent says to entice, but Eve already sees well enough to know a good meal when she sees it. So maybe the fruit of the tempting tree in question didn’t yield any seed, as specified in verse 29 of the opening chapter, how was she supposed to tell? (Plotting, you may have noticed, was not a strong point of the Genesis authors.)

Believers are never supposed to question why it is that the “fruit” is never named or even described in the Genesis account; an avoidance which has always allowed plenty of room for speculation as to which fruit might inspire knowledge of good and evil. Almost certainly the fruit could not be from an apple tree, although that makes for easy picking and colorful storytelling. On the non-accommodating side of the apple myth, apples occasionally may serve as the incubating media for some worms, and these wriggling God-made creatures are not exactly noted for their wisdom.

Just maybe biblical lore has been hugely misinterpreted. Anyway, who is to say that the fabled tree of Eden could not have actually been a banana tree? Of course the banana is not technically a “tree,” but is considered a large herbaceous plant with a perennial root or rhizome from which the plant is perpetuated. Such details certainly would not have bothered the Genesis authors. The banana is, however, a tree-like tropical plant, and we should remember that Adam and Eve are said to have romped around the garden naked. And how could they have ignored such a plant which can, when full-grown, attain a height of ten to forty feet and is surmounted by a crown of large leaves six to ten feet long and which may be two to three feet across? And the plant’s flowers are charmingly arranged in whorl-like clusters along a central spike. All-in-all a very ornate, attractive, alluring bit of foliage.

And what tempting fruit it bears! How was Eve to know that it was not fruit that bore seed (as specified in Genesis 3:29)? For some strange reason the shape of the fruit made Eve think of Adam. The fruit, she would notice, varied in length from four to twelve inches, and from one to nearly two inches thick; just right for enjoying raw. Thus we read in verse six of the third chapter of Genesis, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat…” Of course we are not supposed to ask, if Eve was virtually as brainless as a doorknob how could she have understood the advantages of becoming wise? But the fable says that Eve was overjoyed at the new delight, and she then coaxed her mate to share the enjoyment of gobbling on the forbidden fruit. With this God-revealed holy truth the authors of Genesis not only provided the limp excuse for man’s woes but placed the female in position as the direct cause of “original sin.”

So isn’t all this compelling evidence that the banana is a better representative of forbidden fruit? First of all this species of vegetation does not exist in the wild: it cannot perpetuate itself–cannot survive without the intervention of human cultivation. Only by taking cuttings from the perennial root of a banana tree and transplanting it can a new tree be produced. Such a dead-end situation certainly is not an ordinary perpetuation condition. Maybe that means that the original couple dared to steal some roots of the forbidden tree before they were booted out of Eden.

Special-interest handouts by political office holders in the United States have become big-time privileges over the last few decades—increasing dramatically after the Religious Right gained control over the Grand Old Party in 1996. The fast changing legal status of churches and faith system institutions, underhandedly implemented, served to elevate religious organizations into more lenient rules than permitted to their secular counterparts.

Such deliberate disregard for the democratic principles by religious extremists regarding separation of church and state is hardly due to any spiritual morals. This dangerous and frightening chipping away at long-standing principles of democracy has occurred under pressure from extremist religious groups that have muscled their way into the political arena. It is unclear as to why an “omnipotent, omniscient” God should have to rely on using such devious means to achieve “his” wishes. But the raucous, self-serving religious extremists have effectively contaminated a clueless Congress, the US Supreme Court, the White House, and federal and state courts, all of which have carelessly conceded to the demands that “faith” groups (Christian only) should be protected from any government intrusion.

This has been pushed upon the widely diverse populace of the US and injected with a false eminence that reflects neither the principles of true democracy nor higher spiritual values. These predatory religious wolves have accomplished this betrayal of democratic principles by camouflaging themselves with sheep’s clothing. Thus disguised they have methodically selected single regulations one by one and thereby disfigured numerous longstanding laws of equality. This has left so many democratic principles mauled to an extent that the “faith” pretenders, their buildings and programs which are only slightly related to any faith system may virtually thumb their noses at requirements leveled upon everyone else. That bears the foul odor of theocratic ideology.

The intended aim of their faith-based scheme of crippling true democratic principles is very nearly completed, the aim of which is the establishment of an enormous subsidy for religion—meaning the misuse of tax-payer money to promote the Christian version of faith posturing. This happens to be contrary to the establishment clause of the First Amendment, but what the hell!

Under these special-interest allowances, unethically obtained, even the day-care centers that have religious affiliations are actually exempted from licensing requirements in a number of states. In Texas, for example, the religious day-care facilities and drug-treatment programs were once exempt from state licensing. However, protected with privileged status the abuse and disregard for patients in these facilities proved to be greater than in nonreligious facilities. Another example; the health care system operated by the Seventh Day Adventists is actually allowed to bar nurses from joining unions. Many states permit tax-free churches to build and expand in ways that clearly violate zoning ordinances with which everyone else must comply. Religious-front operations routinely discriminate in choosing employees. Even persons working for them, if suddenly stricken with some physical malady, can be unceremoniously dumped by religious-front organizations, which would never be tolerated in nonreligious organizations.

Special privileges that are extended by dogmatic politicians to certain (Christian only) religious organizations is neither fair nor just in a nation that was built upon dedication to the freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness. And practicing bigotry and narrow-mindedness as religious observance is neither righteous nor spiritual in a creation that brims with lavish diversity. A true democratic society can function only within conditions of equality and respect for each individual within the nation. Attempting to inject one particular man-made faith system into politics of a nation dedicated to freedom for its diverse people can only accomplish catastrophe for all.

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say, “Let there be…” such and such, then such and such appeared. Thus, without any recipe or formula or blueprint, all the varied components of whatever he envisioned just magically came together in manifested form. No trials, no errors; just zap. Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity in just seven “days.” Or so say the Creationists. However, they never bother themselves to clarify which version of Creation they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give differing accounts! And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God came into existence. Is this supernatural version of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in any school?

However, in order for all of God’s forms which he had manifested to be regenerated and maintained, a systematic routine had to be put in place. And that regenerating system for each and every thing that he had created required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation. Scientific sleuthing managed to discover a vital part of that blueprint, and we know that as DNA. Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded the “revealed” word of God by thousands of years, and therefore were not privileged to divine enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance of how everything became created. It was up to the priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the facts of Creation. At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the people about the facts of his acts of Creation. And that tiny percent happened to be agitating everyone around Jerusalem. Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what went into his creative process, like chemical compounds and such, were left unexplained. Consequently, how he transformed energy into our little planet with varied life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be used for their own ends. Maybe we should question the Bible-style version of Creation.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated here. Science says that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago. Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in existence on Earth—a short time in Creation terms. To science it seems to be a case of too much too soon.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present well over three billion years ago—and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin—it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than a combination of inert gases and chemicals that then exited on the infant planet.

Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium. If biological life originated in such a composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more abundant elements would figure in any life forms that developed in the primal stew—if not prominently, then at least moderately? But nickel and chromium play practically no role in the biochemical structure of the life forms that developed and thrive on this planet.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless it plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life! Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet in a simmering primeval stew, as once thought, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have developed. But that did not happen either. Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code. All life forms on Earth share a single genetic composition. To religionists, of course, this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as the work of God.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on Earth, however. According to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge planet that made at least two passes through this developing solar system. The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid, or other space object, and the roving planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name Marduk. The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.” This information later became reworked as the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk, known in the Bible as Merodach, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth. Could this possibly be the same god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story relates commanded the activation of all life?

Oddly, in recent modern science, a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account. A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, have offered the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from miniscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth. Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical six “days” of Creation? Or was God just playing a solo game of billiards that week?